Petroski on Engineering: Engineering & Civilization

Engineering and civilization have always gone together, it is difficult to imagine one existing without the other. Indeed, we tend to associate ancient civilizations specifically with their technological achievements, which, in many cases, remain as monuments to the culture. The Pyramids are a most prominent example. The first engineer whose name is known to us was the Egyptian Imhotep, who is credited with the design of massive piles of stones as burial structures.

After millennia, the Pyramids still stand as awesome symbols of engineering design and construction. Although the processes by which the great edifices were realized remain topics of considerable speculation and debate, there is no denying that it took an engineering imagination to conceive of and lay out the elegant external and complex internal structures, and to devise and execute the necessary systems of transporting to the construction site large numbers of stones and lifting them into place in an orderly fashion.

Roman engineering achievements are no less remarkable. The towering aqueducts that still stand may be the most visible manifestations of highly developed and reliable water distribution systems, but the integrated component parts consisting of tunnels, pipes, valves, baths, and drains were all designed to achieve their individual ends and contribute to the overall plan.

While no documents give us detailed information on how the Egyptians accomplished their great engineering projects, the two-millennia-old Ten Books on Architecture by the Roman architect/engineer Vitruvius gives us considerable insight into how ancient engineering was practiced. One of the most remarkable aspects of this oldest surviving book on engineering is how it demonstrates that the way engineers thought about design in ancient times appears to have been fundamentally the same as how we think today, and in their technological context the problems with which the Romans dealt could be as thorny as those we know today.

As is evident in Vitruvius’s Ten Books -- still eminently readable for such an old treatise -- ancient architects and engineers wrestled with design problems defined by competing goals and bounded by technical and nontechnical constraints, including economic ones. Vitruvius describes how the architects and engineers of his time had to be masters of a wide variety of knowledge and skill -- essentially, they had to be broadly interdisciplinary people, something we hear expressed often today.

Greek architecture was obviously aesthetically distinct from Roman, but as Vitruvius made clear, underlying engineering principles were common to both. The design of structures in ancient times was based on geometry, with the Romans favoring the semicircular arch and hemispherical dome as a basic building unit and the Greeks employing mainly post-and-lintel construction. Whichever form was used to build in stone, ancient engineers found limits of use defined by failure.

Buildings, roads, bridges are repeatedly repaired, replaced, and demolished. We seem to have the technology to make better materials; engineering sophistication to make things last; but not the foresight to put quality ahead of short-term cost considerations. The TV breaks, it is cheaper to toss it out and buy a new one. Plastic plumbing components are replacing copper products that are now so cheaply made that they have become undependable. This says something about the current state of engineering AND our "civilization".

Professor Petroski's point about learning from failure is an important one. A recent book, "Creating Innovators: The Making of Ypung People Who Will Change the World," makes a similar point. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the author, Tony Wagner, writes, "In most high school and college classes, failure is penalized. But without trial and error, there is no innovation." Professor Petroski puts that lesson in historical context when he describes how ancient Egyptians, Romans and Greeks built a body of engineering knowledge by learning from failure.

Henry, one comment you made really resonated with me. You mention that Vitruvius's book is still eminently readable. I find that all the time. It is interesting to go back to read source material (as opposed to contemporary commentaries) on any subhject and to see how much like those authors we are. Despite all the great innovations we have developed, we still think in similar ways. In some ways that seems suprising. I guess it should not.

A wile back I was in Germany and our hosts were showing us a Roman aqueduct that was still in operation. It is really a testament to their knowledge and skill. We build on that foundation and reap the benefits.

The standards electrical machines and components are required to meet in the food processing industry are far more stringent than those in traditional plant construction. For specialized production environments such as these, components must not only resist thermal and physical stresses, but they must also be resistant to the chemicals used to sterilize equipment.

The word “smart” is becoming the dumbest word around. It has been applied to almost every device and system in our homes. In addition to smartphones and smart meters, we now hear about smart clothing and smart shoes, smart lights, smart homes, smart buildings, and every trendy city today has its smart city project. Just because it has a computer inside and is connected to the Web, does not mean it is smart.

Was Steve Job’s signature outfit of a black turtleneck, jeans, and sneakers the secret behind his success? Maybe, or maybe not, but it was likely an indication of a decision-making philosophy that enabled him to become one of the most successful innovators of all time.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.